EN BANC

[G.R. No. 175608. June 8, 2007.]

DEPARTMENT of BUDGET and MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT

SERVICE (DBM-PS) and the Inter-Agency Bids and Awards
Committee (IABAC) , petitioners, vs . KOLONWEL TRADING , respondent.

[G.R. No. 175616. June 8, 2007.]

VIBAL PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC., LG & M CORPORATION and SD

PUBLICATIONS, INC., petitioners, , vs . KOLONWEL TRADING,
respondent.

[G.R. No. 175659. June 8, 2007.]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, petitioner, vs . KOLONWEL TRADING,

respondent.

DECISION

GARCIA , J : p

Before the Court are these consolidated three (3) petitions for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, to nullify and set
aside the Order 1 dated December 4, 2006 of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 18, in SP Civil Case No. 06-116010 , a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition thereat commenced by herein respondent Kolonwel Trading (Kolonwel for
short) against the Department of Budget and Management Procurement Service (DBM-
PS), et al. ISHaTA

At the core of the controversy are the bidding and the eventual contract awards for
the supply and delivery of some 17.5 million copies of Makabayan (social studies)
textbooks and teachers manuals, a project of the Department of Education (DepEd).
The factual antecedents:
In the middle of 2005, the DepEd requested the services of the DBM-PS to
undertake the aforementioned procurement project which is to be jointly funded by the
World Bank (WB), through the Second Social Expenditure Management Program (SEMP2)
of the Philippines (RP) — International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
Loan Agreement No. 7118-PH 2 (Loan No. 7118-PH, hereinafter) dated September 12,
2002; and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), through SEDIP Loan No. 1654-PHI. Earlier,
the Executive Director of the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB), in reply to a
DepEd query, stated that "procurement[s] for MAKABAYAN . . . textbooks where funds
therefore (sic) are sourced from World Bank Loan shall be governed by the applicable
procurement guidelines of the foreign lending institution. The 2005 Call for Submission of
Textbooks and Teacher's Manuals shall be viewed vis-à-vis relevant World Bank
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 guidelines." 3
On October 27, 2005, the DBM-PS Inter-Agency Bids and Awards Committee
(IABAC) called for a bidding for the supply of the Makabayan textbooks and manuals,
divided into three (3) lots, to wit: Lot 1 for Sibika Grades 1-3; Lot 2 for HeKaSi Grades 4-6
and Lot 3 for Araling Panlipunan Years I-IV. Of the entities, foreign and local, which
responded and procured the Bidding Documents, 4 only eleven (11) bidders submitted,
either as principal or in joint venture arrangement, proposals for the different lots. Among
them were Watana Phanit Printing & Publishing Co., Ltd ., of Thailand (Watana, for
short), petitioner Vibal Publishing House, Inc ., (Vibal, hereinafter), Daewoo
International Corporation of South Korea (Daewoo, for brevity) and respondent
Kolonwel . Kolonwel's tender appeared to cover all three (3) lots. 5
Following the bid and the book content/body evaluation process, the IABAC, via
Resolution (Res.) No. 001-2006 6 dated March 9, 2006, resolved "to recommend to the
[WB] and the [ADB] failure of bids for all lots in view of the abovementioned
disquali cations, non-compliance and reservations of [DepEd] ." Issues of "Con ict of
interest" with respect to Watana and Vibal, " failure in cover stock testing " for Kolonwel and
DepEd's "reservation" were among the disqualifying reasons stated in the resolution. DSEaHT

On March 15, 2006, the IABAC submitted to WB for its review and information Res.
No. 001-2006. Appended to the covering letter was a document entitled "Bid Evaluation
Report and Recommendation for Award of Contract." 7
The following events, as recited in the assailed Manila RTC order and as borne out
by the records, then transpired:
1. In a letter 8 dated April 24, 2006 to the DepEd and the DBM-PS
IABAC Chairman, the WB, through its Regional Senior Economist, Ms. Rekha
Menon, disagreed, for stated reasons, with the IABAC's nding of con ict of
interest on the part of Vibal and Watana and the rejection of their bids. Ms.
Menon, however, upheld the disquali cation of all the other bidders. She thus
asked the IABAC to review its evaluation and to provide the WB with the revised
Bid Evaluation Report (BER), taking into account the December 31, 2006 RP-
IBRD Loan closing date .

2. On May 11, 2006, the IABAC informed Kolonwel of its or its bid's
failure to post qualify and of the grounds for the failure. 9

In its reply-letter of May 18, 2006, 1 0 Kolonwel raised several issues and
requested that its disquali cation be reconsidered and set aside. In reaction,
IABAC apprised WB of Kolonwel's concerns stated in its letter-reply.

3) Subsequently, the IABAC, agreeing with WB's position articulated in

Ms. Menon, issued Res. No. 001-2006-A effectively recommending to WB the
contract award to Vibal of Sibika 1 & 3 and HekaSi 5; to Watana of Sibika 2
a n d HeKaSi 4 & 5 and to Daewoo of Sibika 3. Upon review, WB offered "no
objection " to the recommended award. 1 1

4) The issuance of notices of award and the execution on September

12, 2006 of the corresponding Purchaser-Supplier contracts followed. 1 2

5. On June 23, 2006, the DBM-PS IABAC chairman informed Kolonwel

of the denial of its request for reconsideration and of the WB's concurrence with
the denial. 1 3 The IABAC denied, on September 8, 2006, a second request for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 reconsideration of Kolonwel 1 4 after WB found the reasons therefor, as detailed in
PS IABAC Res. No. 001-2006-B 1 5 dated July 18, 2006, unmeritorious, particularly
on the aspect of cover stock testing. CSDcTA

Such was the state of things when on, October 12, 2006, Kolonwel led with the RTC
of Manila a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Docketed as SP Civil Case No.
06-116010, and ra ed to Branch 18 of the court, 1 6 the petition sought to nullify IABAC
Res. Nos. 001-2006 and 001-2006-A and to set aside the contract awards in favor of Vibal
and Watana. In support of its TRO application, Kolonwel alleged, among other things, that
the supply-awardees were rushing with the implementation of the void supply contracts to
beat the loan closing-date deadline.
A week after, the Manila RTC scheduled — and eventually conducted — a summary
hearing on the TRO application. In an order 1 7 of October 31, 2006, as amended in another
order 1 8 dated November 20, 2006, the court granted a 20-day TRO enjoining the IABAC, et
al, starting November 6, 2006, from proceeding with the subject September 12, 2006
purchase-supply contracts. In the original order, the court set the preliminary conference
and hearing for the applied preliminary injunction on November 7, and 8, 2006,
respectively.
In the meantime, Vibal led an urgent motion to dismiss 1 9 Kolonwel's petition on
several grounds, among them want of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action, inter alia
alleging that the latter had pursued judicial relief without rst complying with the protest
procedure prescribed by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184, otherwise known as the
"Government Procurement Reform Act." The DepEd later followed with its own motion to
dismiss, partly based on the same protest provision. As records show, the trial court did
not conduct a hearing on either dismissal motions, albeit it heard the parties on their
opposing claims respecting the propriety of issuing a writ of preliminary injunction.
On December 4, 2006, the Manila RTC issued its assailed Order 20 nding for
Kolonwel, as petitioner a quo, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the court grants the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
The IABAC Resolution No. 001-2006-A dated May 30, 2006 is annulled and
set aside. IABAC Resolution No. 001-2006 is declared validly and regularly issued
in the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction.
All subsequent actions of the respondents resulting from the issuance
of IABAC Resolution No. 001-2006-A are consequently nulli ed and set
aside . This court grants a nal injunction pursuant to Sec. 9 of Rule 58 of
the Rules of Court as amended, restraining respondents Department of Education
and Culture (sic), [DBM-PS], [IABAC], Vibal Publishing House, Inc., LG & M
Corporation and SD Publications from the commission or continuance of acts,
contracts or transactions proceeding from the issuance of IABAC Resolution No.
001-2006-A. HIcTDE

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis and words in brackets supplied)

Hence, these three (3) petitions which the Court, per its Resolution 2 1 of January 16,
2007, ordered consolidated. Earlier, the Court issued, in G.R. No. 175616 , a TRO 2 2
enjoining the presiding judge 2 3 of the RTC of Manila, Branch 18, from proceeding with SP
Civil Case No. 06-116010 or implementing its assailed order.
Petitioners urge the annulment of the assailed RTC Order dated December 4,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 2006 , on jurisdictional ground, among others. It is their parallel posture that the Manila
RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case despite respondent Kolonwel's failure to
observe the protest mechanism provided under Sec. 55 in relation to Secs. 57 and 58 of
R.A. No. 9184, respectively reading as follows:
Sec. 55. Protest on Decision of the BAC. — Decisions of the BAC [Bids
and Awards Committee] in all stages of procurement may be protested to the
head of the procuring entity . . . . Decisions of the BAC may be protested by
ling a veri ed position paper and paying a non-refundable protest fee. The
amount of the protest fee and the periods during which the protest may
be filed and resolved shall be specific in the IRR.

Sec. 57. Non-interruption of the Bidding Process. — In no case shall

any process taken from any decision treated in this Article stay or delay the
bidding process. Protests must first be resolved before any award is made.

Sec. 58. Report to Regular Courts; Certiorari. — Court action may be

resorted to only after the protests contemplated in this Article shall have
been completed. Cases that are led in violation of the process speci ed
in this article shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction . The [RTC ] shall
have jurisdiction over nal decisions of the head of the procuring entity.
(Emphasis and words in bracket added.)

As a counterpoint, the respondent draws attention to its having twice asked, and
having been twice spurned by, the IABAC to reconsider its disquali cation, obviously
agreeing with the Manila RTC that the judicial window was already opened under the
exhaustion of available administrative remedies principle. In the same breath, however, the
respondent would argue, again following the RTC's line, that it was prevented from ling a
protest inasmuch as the government had not issued the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9184 to render the protest mechanism of the law operative
for foreign-funded projects. HDIATS

The Court is unable to lend concurrence to the trial court's and respondent's
positions on the interplay of the protest and jurisdictional issues. As may be noted, the
aforequoted Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 sets three (3) requirements that must be met by
the party desiring to protest the decision of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). These
are: 1) the protest must be in writing, in the form of a veri ed position paper; 2) the protest
must be submitted to the head of the procuring entity; and 3) the payment of a non-
refundable protest fee. The jurisdictional caveat that authorizes courts to assume or,
inversely, precludes courts from assuming, jurisdiction over suits assailing the BAC's
decisions is in turn found in the succeeding Section 58 which provides that the courts
would have jurisdiction over such suits only if the protest procedure has already been
completed.
Respondent's letters of May 18, 2006 2 4 and June 28, 2006 2 5 in which it requested
reconsideration of its disquali cation cannot plausibly be given the status of a protest in
the context of the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9184. For one, neither of the letter-
request was addressed to the head of the procuring entity, in this case the DepEd
Secretary or the head of the DBM Procurement Service, as required by law. For another, the
same letters were unveri ed. And not to be overlooked of course is the fact that the third
protest-completing requirement, i.e., payment of protest fee, was not complied with.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Given the above perspective, it cannot really be said that the respondent availed
itself of the protest procedure prescribed under Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 before going
to the RTC of Manila via a petition for certiorari. Stated a bit differently, respondent sought
judicial intervention even before duly completing the protest process. Hence, its ling of
SP Civil Case No. 06-116010 was precipitate. Or, as the law itself would put it, cases that
are filed in violation of the protest process "shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
Considering that the respondent's petition in RTC Manila was actually led in
violation of the protest process set forth in Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184, that court could
not have lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. In fact, Section
58, supra, of R.A. No. 9184 emphatically states that cases led in violation of the protest
process therein provided "shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
It is to be stressed that the protest mechanism adverted to is a built-in
administrative remedy embodied in the law itself. It was not prescribed by an
administrative agency tasked with implementing a statute through the medium of
interpretative circulars or bulletins. Ignoring thus this administrative remedy would be to
defy the law itself. DIAcTE

It will not avail the respondent any to argue that the absence of an IRR to make the
protest mechanism under R.A. No. 9184 become operative for foreign-funded projects
was what prevented it from complying with the protest procedure. As the last sentence of
the afore-quoted Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 is couched, the speci c o ce of an IRR for
foreign-funded project, vis-à-vis the matter of protest, is limited to xing " the amount of
the protest fee and the periods during which the protest may be led and resolved ." Surely,
the absence of provisions on protest fee and reglementary period does not signify the
deferment of the implementation of the protest mechanism as a condition sine qua non to
resort to judicial relief. As applied to the present case, the respondent had to le a protest
and pursue it until its completion before going to court. There was hardly any need to wait
for the speci c ling period to be prescribed by the IRR because the protest, as a matter
of necessity, has to be lodged before court action.
Neither is it necessary that the amount of protest fee be prescribed rst.
Respondent could very well have proceeded with its protest without paying the required
protest fee, remitting the proper amount once the appropriate IRR fixed the protest fee.
There may perhaps be room for relaxing the prescription on protest if a bona de
attempt to comply with legal requirements had been made. But the fact alone that the
respondent did not even submit a veri ed position paper by way of protest argues against
such plausibility. Signi cantly, none of the reconsideration-seeking letters of the
respondent advert to the protest procedure under Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184, even by
way of noting that it was at a loss as to the inoperativeness of such provision in the light of
the absence of an IRR.
In its petition before the Manila RTC, the respondent veritably admitted to not
complying with the protest requirement, albeit with the lame excuse that it was effectively
barred from complying with the required administrative remedies of protest. Neither did
the respondent then argue that it was not able to comply due to the absence of an IRR for
foreign-funded projects.
At any rate, there is, in fact a set of implementing rules and regulations, denominated
as "IRR-A," issued on July 11, 2003 by the GPPB and the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee, Section 55.1 2 6 of which provides that prior to a resort to protest, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 aggrieved party must rst le a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the BAC. It is
only after the BAC itself denies reconsideration that the protest, accompanied by a xed
protest fee, shall be filed within the period defined in the IRR. ITDHSE

It may be that IRR-A specifically defines its coverage to "all fully domestically-funded
procurement activities," it being also provided that " foreign-funded procurement activities
shall be the subject of a subsequent issuance." 2 7 However, a similarly drawn argument
involving IRR-A was set aside in Abaya v. Ebdane , 2 8 a case involving Loan Agreement No.
PH-P204 entered into by and between the RP and the Japan Bank for International
Cooperation (JBIC) for the implementation DPWH Contract Package No. I (CP I). Wrote the
Court in Abaya:
Admittedly, IRR-A covers only fully domestically-funded procurement
activities from procurement planning up to contract implementation and that it is
expressly stated that IRR-B for foreign-funded procurement activities shall be
subject of a subsequent issuance. Nonetheless, there is no reason why the policy
behind Section 77 of IRR-A cannot be applied to foreign-funded procurement
projects like the CP I project. Stated differently, the policy on the prospective or
non-retroactive application of RA 9184 with respect to domestically-funded
procurement projects cannot be any different with respect to foreign-funded
procurement projects . . . . It would be incongruous, even absurd, to provide for the
prospective application of RA 9184 with respect to domestically-funded
procurement projects and, on the other hand, as urged by the petitioners, apply RA
9184 retroactively with respect to foreign-funded procurement projects. To be
sure, the lawmakers could not have intended such an absurdity.

As in Abaya, there really should be no reason why the policy behind Section 55.l of
IRR-A on the procedure for protest cannot be applied, even analogously, to foreign-funded
procurement projects, such as those in this case. Indeed, there is no discernable
justi cation why a different procedure should obtain with respect to foreign-funded
procurement undertakings as opposed to a locally funded project, and certainly there is no
concrete foundation in R.A. 9184 to indicate that Congress intended such a variance in the
protest procedure.
The Manila RTC, in granting the petition for certiorari and prohibition, stated the
observation that there was "substantial compliance of the requirement of protest." 2 9 Yet, it
is not even clear that respondent Kolonwel, in its dealings with the IABAC, particularly in
seeking reconsideration of its decision, was even aware of the protest requirements. What
is beyond dispute, however, is that courts are precluded by express legislative command
from entertaining protests from decisions of the BAC. What Congress contextually
intended under the premises was that not only would there be a distinct administrative
grievance mechanism to be observed in assailing decisions of the BAC, but that courts
would be without jurisdiction over actions impugning decisions of the BACs, unless, in the
meantime, the protest procedure mandated under Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 is brought
to its logical completion. HTSIEa

It is Congress by law, not the courts by discretion, which de nes the court's
jurisdiction not otherwise conferred by the Constitution. Through the same medium,
Congress also draws the parameters in the exercise of the functions of administrative
agencies. Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 could not be any clearer when it mandates the
manner of protesting the decision of bids and awards committees. Similarly, there can be
no quibbling that, under Section 58 of the same law, courts do not have jurisdiction over
decisions of the BACs unless the appropriate protest has been made and completed. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 absence of the IRR does not detract from the reality that R.A. No. 9184 requires a protest
to be filed under the form therein prescribed.

Given the above perspective, the Manila RTC had no jurisdiction over respondent
Kolonwel's petition for certiorari and prohibition. Accordingly, it ought to have granted
herein petitioners' motion to dismiss, but it did not. Worse, the court even added another
layer to its grievous error when it granted the respondent's basic petition for certiorari and
prohibition itself.
Compounding the Manila RTC's error is its having proceeded with SP Civil Case No.
06-116010 even without acquiring jurisdiction over Watana. As may be recalled, the
respondent, in its petition before the RTC, impleaded Watana as one of the defendants, the
latter having been awarded by the IABAC Sibika 2 and HeKaSi 4 & 5 . The records, however,
show that Watana was not served with summons. The Sheriff's Return dated October 18,
2006, noted that summons was not served on Watana and another defendant at "No. 1281
G. Araneta Avenue cor. Ma. Clara Street, Quezon City, on the ground that said companies
were not holding office thereat according to Mr. Marvin V. Catacutan."
There can be no dispute that Watana is an indispensable party to the respondent's
petition in SP Civil Case No. 06-116010 , Kolonwel having therein assailed and sought to
nullify the contract-award made in its and Vibal's favor. Indispensable parties are those
with such interest in the controversy that a nal decree would necessarily affect their
rights so that courts cannot proceed without their presence. 3 0 All of them must be
included in a suit for an action to prosper or for a nal determination to be had. 3 1 Watana,
to repeat, was never served with summons; neither did it participate in the proceedings
below. Plainly, then, the Manila RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over one of the
indispensable parties, the joinder of whom is compulsory. 3 2
With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court nds it unnecessary to even dwell on the
other points raised in this consolidated cases. In the light, however, of the Manila RTC's
holding that the WB Guidelines on Procurement under IBRD Loans do not in any way
provide superiority over local laws on the matter, 3 3 the Court wishes to state the following
observation: DCSETa

As may be recalled, all interested bidders were put on notice that the DepEd's
procurement project was to be funded from the proceeds of the RP-IBRD Loan No. 7118-
P H, 3 4 Section 1, Schedule 4 of which stipulates that "Goods . . . shall be procured in
accordance with the provisions of Section 1 3 5 of the 'Guidelines for Procurement under
IBRD Loans.'" Accordingly, the IABAC conducted the bidding for the supply of textbooks
and manuals based on the WB Guidelines, particularly the provisions on International
Competitive Bidding (ICB). Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184 expressly recognized this particular
process, thus:
Sec. 4. Scope and application. — This Act shall apply to the
Procurement of . . . Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of source of funds,
whether local or foreign by all branches and instrumentalities of government . . . .
Any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject
matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory
shall be observed . (Emphasis added.)

The question as to whether or not foreign loan agreements with international

nancial institutions, such as Loan No. 7118-PH, partake of an executive or international
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 agreement within the purview of the Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, has been answered by the
Court in the a rmative in Abaya, supra. Signi cantly, Abaya declared that the RP-JBIC loan
agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project and that the JBIC
Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement, shall primarily govern the
procurement of goods necessary to implement the main project.
Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, 3 6 which is
in fact embodied in the afore-quoted Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, the RP, as borrower,
bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118-PH.
Applying this postulate in the concrete to this case, the IABAC was legally obliged to
comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation
of the bidding/procurement process in question.
WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are GRANTED and the assailed
Order dated December 4, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in its SP Case No. 06-
116010 is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. IcTEaC

No cost.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario and
Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J., is on official leave.
Quisumbing, Acting C.J. and Ynares-Santiago, J., concur in the result.
Carpio-Morales, J., is on leave.
Tinga, J., please see concurring opinion.
Nachura, J., took no part. Filed pleadings as Solicitor General.

Separate Opinions
TINGA , J., concurring :

I concur in the thoughtful ponencia of Justice Garcia on the jurisdictional aspects of

the case. However, as regards the concluding discussion prefaced by reference to "the
Manila RTC's holding that the WB Guidelines on Procurement under IBRD Loans do not
provide in any way superiority over local laws on the matter." 1 I withhold comment until
the point is raised as a determinative issue in an appropriate case. Said closing discussion
is rightly intended by the ponencia as dictum, and indeed any conclusion on that point will
not affect the jurisdictional flaws that attended the petition filed before the RTC. ScCEIA

Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 175659), pp. 44-103.
2. Annex "D" of Petition (G.R. No. 175608); id. (G.R. No. 175608), at 122 et seq.

3. Id. (G.R. No. 175659), at 108 et seq.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Annex "G" of Petition (G.R. No. 175608); id. (G.R. No. 175608), at 187-348.
5. Id. (G.R. No. 175659), at 143 et seq.
6. Id. at 135 et seq.
7. Id. at 143 et seq.
8. Id. at 195 et seq.
9. Id. at 198 et seq.
10. Id. at 200 et seq.
11. Id. at 214 et seq.
12. Id. at 245-250 [Watana-DBM-PS]; 262-266 [Vibal-DBM-PS]; at 272-275 [Daewoo-DBM-
PS].

13. Id. at 223 et seq.

14. Embodied in a letter of June 28, 2006; Id. at 244 et seq.
15. Id. at 234 et seq.
16. Presided by RTC Judge Myra V. Garcia Hernandez. IDAEHT

17. Rollo, (G.R. No. 175659), pp. 318 et seq.

18. Id. at 340.
19. Id. (G.R. No. 175608), at 576 et seq.
20. Supra note 1.
21. Id. (G.R. No. 175659), at 360.
22. Id. (G.R. No. 175616), at 470-71.
23. Supra note 16.
24. Supra note 10.
25. Supra note 14.
26. Sec. 55.1. Decisions of the BAC with respect to the conduct of bidding may be
protested in writing to the head of the procuring entity: Provided, however, That a prior
motion for reconsideration should have been filed by the party concerned within the
reglementary periods specified in this IRR-A, and the same has been resolved. The
protest must be filed within seven (7) days from receipt . . . of the resolution of the BAC
denying its motion for reconsideration. A protest may be made by filing a verified
position paper . . . accompanied by the payment of a non-refundable protest fee. The
non-refundable protest fee shall be in an amount equivalent to no less than one (1%) of
the ABC.
27. Section, Rule I.

28. G.R. No. 167919, February 14, 2007.

29. Page 15 of the RTC Order.
30. Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 31. Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court.
32. Ibid; Nery v. Leyson, G.R. No. 139306, August 29, 2000, 339 SCRA 232.
33. Page 59 of the RTC Order.
34. Supra note 2.
35. Sec. 1 of the Guidelines provides that the "procedures outlined [herein] apply to all
contracts for goods . . . financed in whole or in part from Bank loans."

36. An agreement must be kept; a treaty must be kept in good faith. aDECHI

TINGA, J., concurring:

1. Decision, p. 13.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com